Most of this is copied from another thread. Whenever someone brings up the "entropy argument" in the debate over Creation vs. Evolution, they are announcing "I do not understand basic thermodynamics!" and "I am new to the Creation vs. Evolution debate and would like to be schooled!"

 

For the lay folk, some sites about entropy that aim to clear up confusion:

 

http://www.entropysite.com

http://www.entropysite.com/students_approach.html

 

This site has nothing to do with c vs. e, but is the result of frustration stemming from people's confusion of entropy and "disorder." This is the result of undergrad textbooks attempts to "simplify" the concept, but are only adding confusion to it.

Perhaps you could state why the entropy argument (as ONE of many) is flawed, as your response was deviously devoid of any pertinent content. Hopefully the style of your answer doesn't imply a lack of logical or scientific thinking. If it does, then it's goodbye from me.

There is only pure order from the very begining 'till the end.

Evolution shouldn't be said to be out of randomness.

What appears to be randomness is the intended order.

 

That's my spin on the order of life.

You can't clear up entropy. In attempting to do so you do work, which creates more entropy than you cleared up.

 

That's some law, that second law of thermodynamics.

Paradox,

 

Perhaps you could state why the entropy argument (as ONE of many) is flawed, as your response was deviously devoid of any pertinent content.

It has to do with the big honkin' sun in the sky constantly raining down energy into our system. Life is an open system, constantly taking in energy from the sun*.

 

Analogously, its like seeds growing in the ground. Seeds need to constantly take in energy from its surroundings to grow and develop, otherwise the seed either does nothing or it decays. (If we were to accept the creationist misconception that simple things cannot build up to larger things, then growing things should be an act of God.)

 

 

* Note: there is creationist strawman that "shining light onto a dead plant does not cause it to become alive again" - these kinds of comments are so silly that they dont even merit refutation.

Perhaps you could state why the entropy argument (as ONE of many) is flawed, as your response was deviously devoid of any pertinent content. Hopefully the style of your answer doesn't imply a lack of logical or scientific thinking. If it does, then it's goodbye from me.

Read the opening paragraphs of the OPs first link. The flaw should then be self evident - assuming you don't lack the basic skills of logic and scientific thinking!

Another simple way to view entropy:

 

Things become disordered over time.

ex) The walls in your house get older as time goes by, it does not last forever.

 

It can almost be seen as the inevitable deterioration of a system.

For more information, try reading The Fabric of the Cosmos by Brian Greene.

 

Fabulous book.

I for one would be devastated if Paradox never came back.